In re the Estate of Proto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Proto

245 A.D.2d 520, 666 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13245

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 1997·Published

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA § 2103 to discover property withheld from the decedent’s estate, Phyllis Lanza appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Scholnick, S.), dated December 4, 1996, which, inter alia, directed that the decedent’s one-half interest in certain real property be returned by her to the decedent’s estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner was not prohibited by the doctrine of “unclean hands” from seeking to have the decedent’s one-half interest in the property at issue reconveyed by the appellant to the decedent’s estate (cf., Pattison v Pattison, 301 NY 65; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, 187 AD2d 490; Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358).

[521] The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA § 2103 to discover property withheld from the decedent’s estate, Phyllis Lanza appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Scholnick, S.), dated December 4, 1996, which, inter alia, directed that the decedent’s one-half interest in certain real property be returned by her to the decedent’s estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner was not prohibited by the doctrine of “unclean hands” from seeking to have the decedent’s one-half interest in the property at issue reconveyed by the appellant to the decedent’s estate (cf., Pattison v Pattison, 301 NY 65; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, 187 AD2d 490; Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358).

[521] The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of Proto, 245 A.D.2d 520, 666 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

245 A.D.2d 520 (In re the Estate of Proto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related